Month: July 2011

To be frank, I don’t believe the bible fully either and see that huge part of it are most likely written by guys with the same mentality with early church fathers. People hungry for power and need justification for genocide. The idea that the serpent is guilty for enlightening humans simply mirrors how porn are bad for opening human eyes.

Obviously if we know the truth, the truth will set us free. It’ll open our eyes and we will become like politicians, know how right and wrong is truly shaped. Then we’ll have power. Hence, our rulers will do our best to keep us ignorant, and anything that can enlighten us will become an original sin. The story can be interpreted in so many different ways where the snake are actually the good guy. Anyone promoting freedom of speech, freedom of information, are like that snake, and obviously religious leaders hate them alot.

Somehow I have a vision. Good result is not good guy beating up bad guys. After all, all beaters, including Hitler, claim that they’re the good guy and their victim are bad, it’s hard to see the truth beyond propaganda.

Good results happen when good guys cooperate better among each other and reach great prosperity. Bad guys are busy killing each other because they sucks, stupid, and don’t want to know how to cooperate better. The good guys just stay away from the bad.

Ease of movement between countries and globalization will make this happen. Imagine a world where all productive people just flee to whichever country is most meritocratic. There will be much less intensive for war.

Perhaps one day we do not need to punish evil too much. Just let free market reward good. Countries that don’t embrace freedom and meritocracy will become relatively poorer anyway. That alone should give plenty of intensive for the “bad guys” to repent.

When Sunni and Syiah kill each other, I just think, ah…. all those hatred shouldn’t go to waste. That’s what faith are for. That’s what happen when people don’t think for themselves and have faith on whatever bull shit their tyrants declare to be holy truth.

Then I see Israel beating up Lebanon, I don’t know what to think. I guess we’re all not that much different aren’t we from those we think are wrong.

We kill the weak, then embrace whatever veneer to make it look like justice, national defense, necessity or whatever. Obviously, this will just give intensive for everyone to build up military and kill because that’s just what works. It’s like prisoner dillema until someone can see what’s really going on.

I am just curious. http://news.yahoo.com/texas-exec…

This texas man think that he should retaliate against 9/11 by killing middle eastern. I know there are differences between what he did and what Israel did by bombing lebanon. Somehow I see that the difference, for all practical purpose, is quite thin though. What’s the difference? Well, he killed one and get death penalty while those who killed many somehow decides what’s morality is. What’s new? Been like that since Genghish Khan.

A Friendly Jew
Aug 15, 2011A Friendly Jew
Jim,
Israel strives for an ideal — one that no other country does. If the London riots were in Tel Aviv, and the police were as brutal, then the world would condemn Israel. Do you hear anyone condemning the British? Are any of their professors boycotted from teaching in a university because they represent the policies of the British entity? Anyone boycotting Cadbury chocolate? No, of course not.

Israel is held to a higher standard, where anything they do is not good. No matter what.

This fuels a great debate in Israel between the hawks and the doves. Either side proves that Israel will always be hated, attacked, and marginalized. So the Hawks figure, might as well deserve the criticism and be as brutal as they say we are. The Doves figure, we should never stoop to the level of the enemy and be a low as they are.

If the issue is as you said, then perhaps the solution is encourage objectivism.

People should see the other side as is. The good and the bad. If all allies see only the good part and all their enemies only see the bad part, then it make sense to just be brutal because allies don’t see that anyway and enemies will hate you anyway. However, if the world are more discriminating and have mechanism to reward and condemn based on real issue, then people will have more intensive to behave.

However it’s not true that British don’t get criticism. I think cops should have been more brutal there. They sucks because they’re not brutal enough. It’s for the same reason why I think Israel should be more brutal toward Samir Kuntar. You should have had death penalty.What do you do if people are robbing and stoning people?

Also there are riots too in Syria and Libya. US don’t criticize. US bombed Libya for a bunch of reason. People criticize those who are different.

In one reasonable aspect Israel does look worse than the rest of the world. You’re the only country recently that grab land and kick people out. There are other land grabbing too, but not usually followed by kicking people or usually buried deep inside “internal affair” thingy, or that it’s usually involve a small portion of a country’s land, or for any reason, not famous enough.

Now if we see that arab kicked jews out too, and that jews can’t live in palestine, and that jews are discriminated everywhere before Israel and that the most innovative and productive people in the world didn’t even have right to live 50 years ago, all those is understandable. But people don’t know that.

In my opinion, jews are simply better, in many area and people instinctively want to get rid those who are too good. Comes with the package. Sort of like borgueis in China during cultural revolution. I was surprised to learn that in non israel palestine, jews can’t even live.
A Friendly Jew
Aug 16, 2011A Friendly Jew
Jim,
thanks for asking. I would prefer that you do not quote me in this area. I’m not at all an expert in political affairs of this nature and really don’t want to be quoted. I appreciate your support of the Jewish people and of Israel. It is heartwarming to see that some people are compassionate and able to understand others.
Gil
Jim Thio
Aug 16, 2011Jim Thio
I think what you said cut straight into the heart of the problem. If people are going to think we’re evil anyway, why not be evil? Can I quote without mentioning your name.

I think lack of objectivity is the reason behind all conflicts in the world. The key to end suffering is enlightenment of what’s going one. (It’s Buddhist idea, actually). As you see I learn from many religions while having little faith in all.
A Friendly Jew
Aug 16, 2011A Friendly Jew
>Can I quote without mentioning your name.
Yes.
The reality is that a society is a collection of many people and voices. In Israel there are very divergent opinions about the best actions to take. Convey that there are doves and hawks, and neither side has the answer, both feel like they can help, but not solve the problems. And that the world offers them no support either way. So why even try to please others. At best, just make their land safe for the kids to live in.

Disclaimer: I am not pro jews. I am pro capitalism. I don’t care who win. I care that whoever win, win by paying and not by killing.

This is not too surprising. However, this is the essence of all evolutionary psychology. What are humans’ natures? Well what are their ancestors’ natures?

What are their ancestors’ natures? Just look in the past and try to figure out what kind of people used to become ancestors? Those are the kind that reproduced well in the past. That’s our nature now.

9. Anything that makes you feel good are things that made your

ancestors feel good too.

Because you are descendants of ancestors that beget children, you share the same preference with people that beget children. Hence, we can predict that anything that makes you feel good are the kind of things that tend to make you beget children too. Sex is the obvious sample. Quality of sex partner is also another one.

Quantity of sex partner (for male) will be other less obvious ones. So is eating good food. Things that make you feel bad are things that’ll drive you extinct.

So get hit, having your family died, being poor, etc.

8. Males prefer the pretty.

Males that prefer pretty women produce prettier more attractive daughters that attract richer males that sleep with more women and produce more kids.

Beauty signals high quality genes. Also women need to stay healthy and young to beget children. Males that prefer young pretty women survive better in the gene pools. Most of us are descendants of males with that preference.

so you can compare what’s available with your current girl friend/spouse/mate. See if you can do better.

7. Women prefer the rich.

This one is not too surprising. Cars have chick magnet depending on their price. Price of liquors in night clubs are way higher on supermarket because drinking in night club signal wealth to women.

Again same pattern. Women that preferred the rich had more grandchildren and current women are descendants of such women.

This is the interesting part. If I like a woman because she is pretty, will I become prettier? No. I like pretty women because I am a descendant of males that like pretty women. Prettier women have better genes that I will inherit to my kids.

The beneficiary is actually my offspring, not me, but I feel like getting hot babes. Instinctively by following my emotion, I not only benefit my self, but my offspring too. Inheriting good genes to ones’ kid is what I call responsible parenting. Make sure your mate is hot.

If women like a tall man, will she be taller? No. She likes taller men because taller men will produce taller kids that will attract more women.

If women like richer males, will she be richer? Yes. But even if that’s not the case, she still has plenty of intensive to like richer males. Maybe richer males have more common sense. Maybe richer males are smarter. Those traits are inherited. Wealth, like height, and beauty, also signal genetic quality.

This is why super-hot stars like Salma Hayek, with no problem getting any males she wants, pick a billionaire that also sleep around with so many other women. That’s how basketball stars sleep with so many women that they do not pay.

All of us instinctively want the best for our offspring. About 50% of that comes from picking higher quality mates. We think we do it for our self, but we’re actually doing it for our offspring. Things that make us feel good are things that are indeed good, not just for us, but for our family and offspring.

Governments would often argue that marriage is what’s “best” for children. Think about it. Your government would probably one day kill your children. Ask the Jews. What do governments care or know about your children? However, through evolution, we are programmed by our genes to provide the best for our children. That means picking the highest quality mates even if that means having to share.

Punish males in countries that don’t embrace free market. Woo all their hottest babes to your country instead. Spread freeedddoommmmmm, truth and justice!!!!! The market way.

6. We’re not just selfish, we’re also greedy.

If we have to choose among many women, we will choose all.

We’re not descendants’ monks and virgins. We are not descendants of those who are not greedy. The greedier a person, the more likely he’ll inherit something to the gene pool.

The same way those with few kids contribute little to our gene pool. Most of our genes are contributed by warlords that kill millions and knocked up thousands. The greedy are the one inheriting the earth. Blessed be the greedy, selfish, manipulative, and jerks because their kind is inheriting the world for like 8 k years. It’s not until Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations things change a little bit.

Just like successful sperms are not those that live the longest. Successful sperms are those who greedily grab the egg depriving all other sperms for the same chance.

The same way, successful males are not the one living the longest but those knocking up the most beautiful girls while depriving other males out of the same chance through any means.

5. Many humans are not just selfish and greedy, they’re also bigotic and humans will kill each other, especially the innocent.

written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Because males are greedy, every single males that got another women would mean the other don’t get any. Hence, deep inside, we sort of want others to fail, especially those far better than us.

This explains all pogroms against more successful and peaceful minorities group all over the world. From Jewish holocaust, Armenian genocide, to pogroms against bourgeois in PRC and Rusia. Being innocent won’t help. Those people die not despite their innocence. They died because they don’t fight back enough. They died because they earned money honestly and peacefully only to have all that snatched by those with something people should have aimed for more: power.

Why the bigots don’t aim for tyrants? After all tyrants are evil. Tyrants control the media. Tyrants are cruel and manipulative. Tyrants are filthy rich. Tyrants sell their country. Tyrants are not nationalists. Tyrants are jerks. Tyrants are cruel. So why not lash out at tyrants? The truth is, tyrants are tough to mess with. If you fight a tyrant, you die. So people aim for softer target. Innocent nice guys.

You don’t have to be as evil as tyrants to enjoy the benefit of being evil. In US, criminals enjoy first class health care. Good guys just die in droves and they’re just statistics. Yet many would go the extra mile to prevent one murderer and serial killers to avoid death penalty. People are afraid of and hence respect bad guys. Good guys are often not that lucky. Obviously human need to maintain the opposite reputation. But that’s often what human’s nature are.

Deep inside, those bigots knew they’re aiming at innocent. Deep inside, they also knew that it doesn’t matter anyway. What matters is that they got their veneer and can maintain image of being just. That’s it.

One of my vets told us that humans are the most evil animal. “Lions will stop killing when he’s full,” he said. I checked on lions. A male lion that already got 8 wives, will still deprive other lions from getting any. When a male killed another male lion, the victor will kill all the losing lion’s children.

Yea, lion is not greedy for money. But money simply don’t help lions reproduce. They’re greedy for everything else that matter, including lioness and territory.

No. We’re not the most evil animal. We’re just like everyone else.

4. Monogamy correlates very positively with democracy.

Basically most males are “better” of preventing an alpha male from getting too many women. Under democracy, interests of “most males” prevail.

While Christians often argue that the bible is in favor of monogamy, torah are not build by a democratic culture. Hence, we would expect polygamy to be common and tolerated during biblical time, which we did. We also predict that Greek and Romans, which are democratic, to be the original practitioners of monogamy either, which we did.

Until today, democracy, rather than any religions, predicts intolerance against polygamy far more than religions or culture.

That being said, polygamy cultures tend to be authoritarian. After all, shagless males would do anything to get laid, including committing suicide bombing to get virgins. Hence, penalty must be harsh to keep them inline.

written by a Mensa member sold by 2coWho makes marriage terms? The marrying couple? No. Your competitors that want to bang that same girl create marriage terms. They have their own interests and that’s often the opposite of your interest or your spouse interests. One of their interests is to make sure that best selling men, don’t sell too much.

Just ask Beaty Chadwick that rot in jail for 14 years for not paying $2 million to his wife.

Think about it. Imagine if a rich male can get a lot of women without risking his whole wealth? Then rich men will just grab more and more women and the rest will have to settle for the ugly.

By marrying a beautiful girl, you have taken one women out of the mating market. The other males just want to ensure you don’t take more. Of course, you can still get more. However, there is no way you can do it openly. In arab you can do it openly, but only if you’re politically powerful and is in favor of whoever in power.

At the ends, power, not individual rights, that matter more on things that are truly important, like mating selection. Next, we would predict that people want to be in power and that they will kill each other for that, which is of course, true.

2. The more a rich smart male can effectively sleep with women without risking his whole wealth, the more politically incorrect it is.

You name it. How a rich man can use their money to persuade women to sleep without risking his whole wealth? The three main ways to do it are prostitution, contract marriage, and polygamy. All are illegal.

The politically correct ways are marriage, well that means risking his whole wealth. The next best way is free sex. That is also very politically incorrect in most countries.

Also males tend to make more money and women tend to stay at home raising children. So it’s kind of strange to expect a rich male to work hard all his life to make money and not spending it for women that choose him and his children. However, marriage terms tend to aim to destroy wealth rather than to support any women or children.

Reproduction is artificially costly in democratic countries for rich males and artificially cheap for poor males. Rich males pay child support and alimony proportional to his wealth. However, reproduction is artificially cheap for the poor due to subsidies. This explains why the poor breed more kids than the rich. It’s naturally predicted by evolution theory because humans want to get rid those richer than them out of the gene pool. Most people do not like supermen walking.

In general, the more attractive an offer someone make, the more politically incorrect it is. That’s why porn is illegal, because males prefer the pretty and pretty women showing her beauty is very attractive.

That’s why consensual women trafficking and international romance is politically incorrect. That’s because women from poorer countries give more attractive offers than women from richer countries that tend to be more expensive.

And that’s the same reason why prostitution is illegal. Because rich men that pays is way too attractive for lesser males that don’t.

1. The more consensual alternatives are available besides marriage legally, the less marriage there will be

Pro marriage religious group tend to argue that we need to protect marriage from other consensual alternatives. Finally they said something that make sense.

Marriage does need defending and government does need to define marriage for purpose of marriage to work.

What they didn’t tell you is that the purpose of marriage is not to serve your best interest but theirs. Hence, without protection against other consensual alternatives, marriage will disappear.

Their normal explanation doesn’t make sense. If marriage is the best and, we know our genes program us to want the best for our self and our offspring, why does marriage need protection from consensual alternatives? Best product do not need protection from competition.

When did American’s holy wood movies ask for protection from foreign competitors? When did Microsoft or Coca Cola asked government to be protected from competitors? Those who provide true value don’t need such protection. Their competitors can’t compete with them anyway. But marriage does, because marriage can’t compete.

Think about it, outside marriage, you, rather than your competitors, write your own deal. Of course it’s more attractive.

It’s like importing goods from china. Of course consumers pick that. Yea your local supplier won’t like that, but who care? Once they no longer have power to prevent you from picking better offers, of course, you pick better ones.

This is very surprising. Again and again religious group argue that no women would want to be prostitute unless they are forced too. Again and again politicians say that they need to protect young people from sex outside marriage.

People imply that marriage is the best for you and that’s what you want anyway while making alternatives illegal.

Of course, if alternatives are illegal, it’s hard to say which one humans truly prefer.

However evolutionary psychology predict that the very things people want to prohibit are the very things that are too attractive. That means, given choice, people would choose sex outside marriage.

So all this time marriage sucks. However, they stay together because they

can’t get out of it.

Now 46% of babies are born outside marriage in US.

0. Women that opposes consensual exploitation of women as sex objects are usually relatively uglier

This one is pretty obvious. People opposes consensual acts mainly to get rid superior competition. Beautiful girls displaying her superior desirability set a new industry standard the rest must follow. In totally victimless ways, pretty girls drive the rest extinct. It’s very understandable then that ugly women would want to drive hot babes out of mating market through any devious and vicious means.

-1. Justification of prohibition against consensual alternatives will often be “religious” in nature

Religious people often say that they forcefully enforce their value out of compassion, to set us straight from what’s harmful to us. Really?

Game theory predicts that people will be honest on cooperative games and deceptive on zero sum game. When it comes to competition, the zero sum aspects predominate and people will lie.

How do you lie? How do you convince people to believe something that’s not true?

Science? Well some science is a lie. However, those lies are scrutinized day and night. Scientific opinions are not usually protected from freedom of speech. People do not get their head chopped off for stop believing in evolution theory.

Scientific theory must produce clear unambiguous conclusions that can be disproved. It’s not easy to do so if the theory is false.

It’s hard to lie with science. It’s far easier to lie with religions.

In fact, the evolutionary costs of believing lies are often low enough it’s often advantageous to lie even to ones’ own self it it can help to convince others to believe the same lies. That’s often what people will do when the lies changes the focal Nash equlibrium to an area they people desire.

Often, truth are simply too complicated, the the only way to counter a lie effectively is by making a bigger lie. That’s how people kill each other to decide which lies are truth.

We would predict that opposition against consensual private relationship to have vague language or heavy religious backing. In fact, we would expect any politically significant aspects of life with huge zero sum aspects to have heavy vague languages and heavy religious backing. From who should rule, to who should have the land, and who are allowed to mate with who, we would expect that religions will evolve a lot on those areas.

So, far from religions predicting humans behavior, proper understanding of humans’ nature help us to see the nature of religions.